On Sunday 11 January 2009 12:25, SM wrote: > Hello, > > In April 2006, the specifications for Sender ID and SPF (RFC 4405, > RFC 4406, RFC 4407 and RFC 4408) were published as > Experimental. These RFCs contain an IESG Note which warns > participants relying on Sender ID that they may lose valid messages > in some circumstances. The note also contains some advice for > participants publishing SPF records about how to avoid the conflict > between the two experiments. The note concludes with an invitation > to the community to observe the success or failure of the experiments > over a two year period so that a consensus can be reached. > > This message is not about: > > 1. Determining which approach is a success or a failure > > 2. An invitation for people opposing the experiments to discuss about > them > > 3. Starting a letter writing campaign to perpetuate the experiments. > > It is in the interest of the community to conclude these two > experiments given that it's over two years and that the IESG believes > that it can lead to loss of mail. As such, it is suggested that RFC > 4405, RFC 4406, RFC 4407 and RFC 4408 be reclassified as Historic. > > Proponents of Sender ID and SPF are encouraged to update their > specifications to resolve any conflict that was observed. Obviously, > it's in their best interests to reach a consensus on what changes are > appropriate instead of trying to publish each document individually > as any individual effort would likely face opposition from the IETF > community. Until the current problems with RFC 5378 are resolved it's not possible to publish an update to RFC 4408 (at least as I understand the RFC 5378 issues). Can we put this off until it's actually possible to do it even in theory? Anyone with an interest in Sender ID that is interested in working on reaching consensus about resolving the conflicts is welcome to contact me off list. Scott K _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf